politics and politicians, water issues, taxation issues, government relations or lack thereof & anything else we wish to write.

Syria

Marita is here again with her usual intelligent analysis and pointed stick for poking silly people and ignorant ideas coming from those sillies. I could post her article by itself, but I believe the reader benefits a great deal in reading her introduction.

I’d planned to write on Australia’s election and what it means for the global warming agenda. Then, I looked at this week’s schedule and realized that there was a hearing that I need to rally folks for in New Mexico on September 10—tomorrow. That realization shifted my topic to net metering—which is a big battle in Arizona, and a smaller one in New Mexico. While the New Mexico hearing is tomorrow, the Arizona fight has national implications. Please read Solar: Obama’s proxy war in the desert (attached and pasted-in-below) to get the full picture.

I’ve done something unique with Solar: Obama’s proxy war in the desert. I’ve added a link to a petition in the text. I created a petition over the weekend and had it ready to go live in time for the publication of Solar: Obama’s proxy war in the desert on Townhall.com. It has been fun to watch the petition numbers climb and read the accompanying comments. It is at 65 signers so far. This will be part of a larger campaign. Hopefully, together, we can get the public involvement up.

I always appreciate your help in spreading the word. Please post, pass on, and/or personally enjoy Solar: Obama’s proxy war in the desert.

Syria isn’t the only battle into which President Obama is injecting himself where he doesn’t belong. True, on a global scale, Arizona’s fight over net metering seems insignificant. However, on a personal scale, what is taking place in Arizona’s sunny desert has the potential to directly impact far more Americans than the shots being fired in Syria’s desert.

Syria’s conflict is often called a proxy war in that it is an indirect confrontation between superpowers via substitute actors. According to the definition of a proxy war found on the Intro to global security blog, “Modern non-state actors do not necessarily want to take over territory or a government; most use the expanding global communication network to levy resources (human or otherwise) and generate wealth and political/ideological power.” By that definition, Arizona’s net metering debate is Obama’s proxy war in the desert.

To understand Obama’s proxy war in the desert, you have to understand the intentionally confusing term: net metering.

Simply, net metering is the process through which homeowners with rooftop solar panels are paid by the local utility company for the excess power they produce. In its report on net metering, the Institute for Energy Research defines it this way: Net metering “allows people who generate electricity on their homes and businesses to sell electricity back to the grid when their generation exceeds their usage.” Sales pitches for rooftop solar often explain net metering as the electric meter running backwards.

Net metering has been around since the early 80s when solar panels were expensive and few people had them. But the dynamics changed drastically when states began passing renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that required predetermined percentages of electricity be generated from renewable sources—some even specified which sources are part the mix and how much of the resource was required. For example, in my home state of New Mexico, the Diversification Rule requires that 1.5 percent of the RPS must be met by “distributed generation” (read: rooftop solar). Arizona requires 30 percent of the RPS be derived from “distributed energy technologies” (once again, rooftop solar).

To meet the mandates, utility companies agreed to pay, what essentially amounts to, full retail rates for the excess electricity being generated by the solar panels. Often the combination of the electricity the homeowner buys from the utility (at night) and what they sell back (during the day) gives them a utility bill of nearly zero. Yet they are still using power from the electric company; they are still plugged into the grid. Grid maintenance, transmission lines and transformers, customer service, and other costs that are part of providing consistent, steady electricity to homes and businesses have historically been borne by everyone using it. Most people don’t think about it; it is just part of the bill.

Anyone who has ever owned a business, knows that you won’t survive for long when you are buying your product at retail and selling it for retail, as there are many additional costs between wholesale and retail. Yet, this is what utility companies are being forced to do through the net metering agreements that were made back when solar was in its infancy and customers needed to be incentivized to install solar panels so that the utility could purchase the power to meet the mandates. When there were only a few solar installations, the loss to the utility had a very small impact. But now, with the numbers increasing, the loss is larger. That loss is being carried by the entire rate base and taking money from family budgets.

The option to utilize solar is principally available for those people who own their own homes, rental properties or businesses. This means that most solar energy installations and all of the government benefits flow to Americans of some means. Despite the steep drop in solar panel prices over the last few years, PV is still a pricey option that is unattainable for most. Therefore, more affluent Americans tend to be the beneficiaries of federal, state and local subsidies, mandates, and utility reimbursement for excess power generation that solar systems may provide. The unintended outcome of the wealthier utility customers enjoying the benefits of net metering subsidies at the expense of their lower-income neighbors has been labeled the “reverse Robin Hood effect.”

Even the New York Times acknowledges that the economics of rooftop solar “depend on government incentives and mandates.” All Arizonians are paying for the few who can afford the up-front costs of solar panel installation—not just through the taxpayer-funded state and federal subsidies, but through their increasing utility rates that are unfairly punishing those who can least afford them.

The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) is currently considering revising the generous credits offered to customers with rooftop solar. The ACC has two plans before it aimed at making up for the lost revenues without the majority of the rate base having to subsidize their wealthier neighbors. One has residential solar customers selling electricity to the grid paying a monthly “convenience fee” for the use and maintenance of the grid and the related expenses. The second, would reduce the credit, which customers with new solar installations would receive, making it comparable to market rates the utility pays other power generators. Those who currently (installed up through mid-October) have rooftop systems would be “grandfathered” in.

“In a lot of ways, Arizona represents ground zero in the debate about how to create a sustainable system for compensating solar rooftop customers,” explains Lance Brown, Executive Director of the Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy (PACE). “We’re talking about a state that is rich in solar resources and that has a mature community of customers who have invested in residential solar. The problem is that the model for paying solar customers for their power generation is utterly unsustainable.

“States that are contemplating how to treat residential solar customers face the fundamental question of how to fairly compensate customers for generation without unfairly shifting the burden of fixed costs to non-solar customers,” adds Brown. “Paying solar customers three and four times the cost of retail generation clearly isn’t the answer. Rather, regulators are going to have to scale back net metering rates and ensure that everyone who is hooked to the grid pays for the fixed costs of maintaining it.”

Many states, including Arizona, are looking at policy adjustments as well. (The New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission has a public hearing regarding its revisions on September 10 in Santa Fe.)

Subsidy-loving President Obama has launched an Arizona-specific campaign lauding those who have made “the switch” to solar and demanding that the ACC protects “full credit for clean energy.” If solar users paid for the panels on their own and cut the cord to the utility, then they truly have made the switch—as the rules stand now, they are just milking the system.

Obama’s involvement shows how important Arizona is to his desired national energy policy—supporting the inefficient, ineffective, and uneconomical models that line the pockets of his friends, while punishing the energy that makes America great. He is using the “global communication network to levy resources (human or otherwise) and generate wealth and political/ideological power.” If the “reverse Robin Hood” policies are modified, the surging purchase and installation of solar panels will slow and more solar companies, funded through the nearly 100 billion of taxpayer dollars allotted to green energy through the 2009 stimulus bill, will go bankrupt. It is in Obama’s best interest to keep these policies that only exist because they “depend on government incentives and mandates” in place—but it is not in Arizona’s best interest, nor America’s. These policies “generate wealth” for Obama’s friends and “political/ideological power” for him.

It is not about whether or not you like rooftop-generated solar electricity, it is about whether or not the subsidized industry continues to make solar executives rich on the back of the average American. It is about continuing, or ending, the crony corruption that fills the solar industry. If you agree that it is time to end the solar subsidies and generous residential credits and that solar customers need to pay their share of grid maintenance and other non-generation costs, please sign the petition to tell the ACC that you support the proposed revisions.

Edward Fenster, chief executive of SunRun (which has received stimulus funds and is under a federal probe), believes “the next six-12 months are the watershed moment for distributed energy.” He, of course, supports continuing the subsidies for solar power and understands that if his side succeeds, it will “dissuade utilities with net metering programs elsewhere from undoing them.”

The saying is usually “as California goes, so goes the nation.” In the case of generous solar credits, as Arizona goes, so goes the nation—which is why Obama’s proxy war in the desert has the potential to directly impact far more Americans than the shots being fired in Syria’s desert.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Share this:

Like this:

I did not know the analysis by Roger Mickelson was waiting for me while I worked on my last post about the same subject. My piece was amateurish at best, Roger’s is full of facts and educated reasoning. Read about Roger’s qualifications or bona fides at the end of his article.

Syria…a summary by Roger Mickelson 09/07/2013

Background. The Fertile Crescent has hosted wars throughout written history. Adversaries sought wealth, power, and, since the beginnings of Islam, ideological domination. Islam, as with most religions, has been subject to schisms, most notably the Sunni-Shia fundamental belief systems…and there are many more splinter groups, particularly those fundamentalist and extremist religious sects that seek to return to the Muslim foundations 1300 years ago.

This underlying conflict environment, the failure of the Caliphate, and the arbitrary creation of national borders after World War I that were and are inconsistent with ethnic and tribal concentrated populations led to increasingly violent conflicts over the last century. Kings and autocratic dictators used internal oppression to maintain what looked like stability, but the most recent eruptions of insurrection, violent overthrows of despotic leaders, and the covert instigation by Islamic extremists (e.g., al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood) led to the so-called Arab Spring series of supposedly sectarian revolts that morphed into ideological civil wars. Some of these have been localized; others involve external actors and allies.

Situation. Syria was and is yet another case of minority-governed, oppressive regimes in the region. It has been a key ally in the region, aligned with Iran to support Shia-influenced Islamic extremists (e.g., Hizb ‘Allah, Hamas) throughout the region with weapons, supplies, political and military advice, and promises for more of the same. Influenced in part by other nations (e.g., Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) with economic and other concerns in the area, Syria plays a central role in the Mid-East. An unstable Syria is a problem for everyone. And it isn’t a simple problem.

The outbreak of the armed conflict by insurgents, economically repressed citizens, and subtle religious ideologues led to the deaths of more than 100,000 civilians, the exodus of 2,000,000 people, and the displacement within Syria of another 1,000,000 or so refugees out of the country. Revolts naturally trigger violent responses by threatened governments, and “President” Bashar al-Assad harshly responded to the uprising by “the people.”

Aside from the political posturing and appeals to emotion in the current debate,

No vital US national interests are at risk; this is a fully sufficient reason to refrain from any US military action against Syria.

Any US military action in reaction to the internal Syrian civil war is an act of war against a foreign, sovereign nation.

The American public does not support US military action against Syria.

There are no stated objectives in proposed military actions.

The supposed Allied support is eroding daily; no one else wants to use their military forces against Syria.

Any limited US unilateral military action will be ineffective and escalatory.

Support of dissident factions constitutes US support of some Islamic extremists, our enemies throughout the world.

Collateral casualties will result from long-range strikes, causing a worldwide outcry against the US.

Iran, Russia, and Arab nations friendly to Syria are likely to retaliate.

Syria will respond with cyber and terrorist attacks on the US at home and abroad.

The alleged use of lethal chemical weapons violates international agreements.

The United States continues to ignore the earlier 100,000 civilian deaths in Syria, similar to the avoidance of action in Africa, where more than a million have been killed.

There is a humanitarian “feeling” that the US should “do something,” but delaying consideration of any action violates the principle of war about surprise and proposing a very limited military action violates the principle of war about mass.

The vast preponderance of circumstances, history, sovereignty, and facts show that the United States must take no unilateral or even allied military actions. If the “feel good” pressures to act must be sated, political, economic, and social elements of national power should be brought to bear; military power is a last resort, not an easy, knee-jerk first resort.

This is clearly and simply a distraction from looming US domestic issues (e.g., budget, health care, debt, unemployment, elections), diverting the public from more relevant topics.

Colonel Roger Mickelson (US Army, Retired) is President of The Military Conflict Institute, an international group of experienced foreign affairs, national security strategy, diplomatic, and military experts who seek to foster public understanding of the nature of military conflict. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of the institute.

Share this:

Like this:

This latest attack on minority Syrian Christians is just more of what we can expect if we decide to release bombs in Syria. If you have any doubt that al-Qaida linked rebels will delight in the slaughter of Christians and other minorities in Syria after we bomb for chemical agents then you haven’t looked at recent history to see what a mess we have left to the Taliban, al-Qaida and other Islāmic terrorists. It is a mess they can manage, because unlike the United States government, they have a will to win and collateral damage is just a price of winning each battle until a total win is knitted together and the United States is just a bitter taste in those countries pock-marked by the bombs of the United States.

I certainly wish it could be otherwise, but the rest of the world and especially the radical Islamists, have seen our once proud resolve waste away when the going gets rough; not the resolve of our fighting men and women, but that of politicians, bureaucrats and a president habitually speaking of “facts,” not existing … that would be verifiable facts. We do not speak of the resolve to bomb. Bombing is easy enough with or without the approval of Congress and/or the acquiescence of the American Citizen.

So, let us follow the first few paragraphs of the latest slaughter of Christians:

By JAMAL HALABY Associated Press

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) — Syrian rebels led by al-Qaida-linked fighters seized control of a predominantly Christian village northeast of Damascus, sweeping into the mountainside sanctuary in heavy fighting overnight and forcing hundreds of residents to flee, activists and locals said Sunday.

The battle over Maaloula, an ancient village that is home to two of the oldest surviving monasteries in Syria, has thrown a spotlight on the deep-seated fears that many of Syria’s religious minorities harbor about the growing role of Islamic extremists on the rebel side in the civil war against President Bashar Assad’s regime.

The prominence of al-Qaida-linked fighters has factored into the reluctance of Western powers to provide direct military support to the rebels. It has also figured in the debate underway in the U.S. Congress over whether to launch military strikes against Syria in retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack last month.

Finally, my ending remarks: Where in the cloudy sky of economics will we get the bucks to pay for this adventure in Hades.

Like this:

The title above was meant to repeat the attitude of Obama when it comes to citizens’ relationship with their elected congress people.There is something terribly little “mannish,” about such an attitude, but then, we are talking about the man habitually using his office to shine above the citizens around him. The problem with such an attitude when it come to “punishing,” Syria is Obama doesn’t know anything about waging war; nor does he have sense enough to use the counsel he could obtain from real advisers. We can hope, but we cannot expect Obama to grow-up and there is not time enough to teach him the ways of war. Below is an article from Reason.com which puts Obama’s deficiencies in the open … where they should be.

As members of Congress mull over President Barack Obama’s request for authorization for military strikes on Syria, the response from constituents so far has been loud and consistent: No.

And that response is as it should be. The American citizens are just tired of being taken for fools who will believe everything a spying president and his security apparatus feeds them. The majority of Americans ain’t buying anymore pablum and binkies they have sold us in the past.

Obama’s message to those Congress members? Don’t listen to them. Listen to me! From ABC News:

President Obama today conceded that he could fail to convince the American public to back proposed U.S. military strikes against Syria, but said that members of Congress should vote to approve the action anyway.

I am hoping the congress critters have had enough of failed ideas from Mr. Obama, and they send a clear message of, “Not no, but Hell no.” Perhaps I am somewhat delusional, but one can hope.

“It’s conceivable that, at the end of the day, I don’t persuade a majority of the American people that it’s the right thing to do,” Obama said in response to a question from ABC News during a solo press conference at the conclusion of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

The above quote should give pause and allow or cause us to say, “Exactly what we hope you reap from this bad idea.”

But, Obama said, members of Congress need to consider the lessons of World War II and their own consciences and vote ‘yes’ to authorize the use of force, even if it means going against the opinion of the majority of their constituents.

What do they have to lose by ignoring the people who vote for them in favor of an ill-formed plan from a second-term president looking forward to a lifetime of easy five-figure dinner speeches?

What “they,” have to lose is self-respect if they vote to bomb and a terrible president if they vote not to bomb. I’ll vote for the latter.

Share this:

Like this:

if you like your coffee and your politics flavorful, served with a heaping dose of civility by a diverse group of interesting people from all parts of the political spectrum then you should be joining us every Saturday. Started in 2007 over coffee and lively conversation by a group of concerned friends and neighbors, ‘Conspiracy Brews’ is committed to finding solutions to some of our State’s toughest problems. Our zest for constructive political discourse is only equaled by our belief that the only way forward is to exchange our views in a relaxed and friendly setting. For additional information or to be added to our e-mail list contact: ConspiracyBrews@aol.com.

Conspiracy Brews

Not your average political discussion group!

September 07, 2013

9:00 AM – 12:00 AM atSouthwest Secondary Learning Center10301 Candelaria Rd NE(northwest corner of Candelaria and Morris)We think that government should be open and honest at all times. People from all political parties are welcome.

***Quotes of the Week***

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Abraham Lincoln

“Destiny is no matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.”

William Jennings Bryan

Suggested Topics

— Will any of NM’s Military Bases be on the next BRAC list and why?

— Education in NM…we are in the middle for payment per student, but at the bottom for education achievement…what really is the problem?

— How do you evaluate Syria and should we attack or not?

(Light Quotes of the week)“The human brain starts working the moment you are born and never stops until you stand up to speak in public.”

George Jessel

“ThisAncient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what’s going to happen to us with both a Senate and a House.”

Will Rogers

“Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did but backwards and in high heels.”

Following Tuesday’s Senate hearing and Wednesday’s House hearing on Syria, the political theater is beginning to sound like some level of US involvement will most likely happen over the chemical weapons attack. Wednesday afternoon, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to authorize President Obama to use limited force against Syria. Lots of arm-twisting will be taking place in the next week. The pundits seem to think the Senate will vote with the President, but that the Republican-controlled House will be a tougher sell—despite the apparent support of Speaker John Boehner.

I am not writing to weigh in on whether or not we should have military action in Syria. I do energy. I have no military experience or expertise. What I do know is the economic impact of energy and politics. I can point out that with just talk of war, the price of oil has increased—even though Syria exports very little oil. (Of course, we know that the Administration wants higher gas prices.)

Since most people agree that there is no good option and disagree as to whether the cost of doing nothing is worse than the cost of doing something, let’s not debate that. Can we be pragmatic about this highly emotional issue? Ultimately, it’s political.

In his Washington Examiner column, “Why many Republicans won’t support Obama on Syria attack,” Byron York points out: “lawmakers might re-write the president’s draft authorization into something they can live with.” We know wrangling and politicking will occur. John McCain has flipped from opposition to support after two amendments were added. Other deals were probably made behind closed doors.

While York presents reasons why Republicans won’t support intervention in Syria, I am presenting amendments should they decide to “re-write” the authorization. Amendments, or horse-trading, are how things are done in DC—I’ll give you what you want, if you give me what I want.

Energy is a big part of the entire Middle East discussion. Many people believe that if the US were not dependent on OPEC oil, we’d have no involvement in the centuries-old tribal conflicts. Any vote for the president’s plan, should be tied to decreasing dependence, increasing independence—or, more accurately, North American oil security. Two specific policy directives are needed.

First, tie any authorization of military action in Syria to approval of the Keystone pipeline, which could cut our Persian Gulf imports in half by bringing an additional 830,000 barrels of oil per day into the US. Had the Keystone pipeline been approved when it was proposed, it would now be just months away from completion. Most Republicans, and many Democrats, support construction of the Keystone pipeline.

Second, allow access to domestic oil-and-gas resources and expedite drilling permits on federal lands. The Energy Information Administration reports that, in 2012, total US oil production was up by 15 percent, over the 2011 number, because of rapid growth of tight oil from reserves on private lands. However, sales of crude oil from federal lands decreased 5 percent. The 2012 figures continue a downward trend.

In July, the House Natural Resources Committee approved three bills to expand American onshore energy production. HR 1965 and HR 1394 specifically address the government hurdles and red tape that block and delay development, the elimination of unnecessary delays, and reforming the process for energy permitting.

In a press release about the committee’s passage of the bills, Chairman Doc Hastings said: “Energy production on federal lands is one of our best opportunities for job creation and energy security, but time and time again the Obama Administration delays and blocks these opportunities. Federal oil-and-natural gas production has declined since President Obama took office, but these bills would help reverse that trend.”

Doug Lamborn, Chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, added: “In recent years we have seen a boom in energy jobs and economic growth on state and private lands. I believe the only reason we haven’t seen that same dynamic growth on federal lands is because of excess regulations.”

The combination of approving the Keystone pipeline and passing HR 1965 and HR 1394 would go a long way toward weaning American off of Middle Eastern oil and both should be tied to any authorization of the use of American military force in Syria.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Share this:

Like this:

Powerful Republican Representatives and Senators are buying another excursion to a place we should not allow our nation to be embroiled. To begin, we are fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where Al Qaeda is as strong, if not stronger than before we crashed their party in both countries. Additionally, as it always seems, we have lost both of those conflicts because we are unable to understand there is no winning unless we are willing to inflict collateral damage as part of the price paid to win the war when the terrorists seek refuge among families. Families which may or may not sympathetic to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and may despise the “liberator.”

Logo Muslim Brotherhood (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We (the United States) supported the Muslim Brotherhood when Mubarak was deposed in Egypt, only to learn the new ruler voted in by popular vote was as bad if not worse than the previous. The Egyptian military and millions of ordinary citizens forced the duly elected Morsi out of his post and into incarceration. I believe we will find he was removed for valid reasons and Egypt will be the better for his absence.

There are armies and governments fully able to invest in freeing their neighbors and fellow Muslims. And, we should allow require them to do so before we spend any more citizens and money to play in another sandbox. Whatever the reason or justification given, going into or over Syria is tantamount to aiding Al Qaeda and other Muslim fanatics.

We still need answers about what transpired, and the culpable ones for our shameful losses of people and standing in Libya.

Run, don’t walk, our butts out of any intent to become involved in or above Syria.

Share this:

Like this:

Bob Steiner is a retired U.S. Army Vietnam Veteran who has won awards for his poetry, some of which was previously published here. Read here:TRIBUTE

by Bob Steiner

Well it looks like Mr. Obama has had another interesting week or two. He had been planning a series of trips to Africa and Europe for some time. These were going to cost a lot of money because of the number of people who would accompany him, as well as the duration of the travel. He was irritated by the news pundits complaining about the cost of his venture. On the other hand, he had been working hard and deserved a vacation. Who really cared if he spent a few million dollars that our Chinese friends had provided?

Then it dawned on him. Under the “Sequester,” guidelines that he and congress had imposed to help reduce budgetary expenses, he could impose some mandatory holidays on federal workers and this would help free up some travel funds. He could also cancel the fireworks shows that were traditionally held at mostmilitary installations to celebrate the nation’s national holiday on July 4. This would really help! Those military guys just spend too much money with their ceremonies.

Well his trip did get off the ground. Starting off at the G8 economic summit with several of our “allies”, some progress was made on international monetary procedures, but the president really had another topic he wanted to push. This was the conflict in Syria.

The war there had been going on for more than a year. More than 80,000 Syrians had been killed and many more had fled the country. Despite the urging of some of our country’s political leaders to help bring the fighting to an end, Mr. Obama seemed to want to do nothing. Then, as the G8 meeting was preparing to close, he gave a speech advocating that those present should now pursue a more aggressive policy against that country. Several of those present, led by Vladimir Putin, seemed to resent his somewhat “late-arriving,” advice, and the conference closed with no real action being taken against Syria. At their final news conference, Mr. Putin really made him sound inept. I guess that K.G.B. training he had had, really paid off. Our President proved to be a real embarrassment, in the eyes of many. Then he was off to Africa.

As he arrived in South Africa, Nelson Mandela, the Country’s National Hero, was hospitalized for a serious life-threatening infection. While he never actually visited Mr. Mandela while in South Africa, he chose to remind the press that he was there and may have gained some stature with Africans.

English: Young Nelson Mandela. This photo dates from 1937. South Africa protect the copyright of photographs for 50 years from their first publication. See . Since this image would have been PD in South Africa in 1996, when the URAA took effect, this image is PD in the U.S. Image source: http://www.anc.org.za/people/mandela/index.html (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In addition to all of the above, we should not lose sight of all the “faux pas” associated with “Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the choice of which leader to support in Egypt, the Internal Revenue Service, and Snowden-N.S.A. classified document problem”. All of the above had one thing in common. Mr. Obama disclosed too much information to the press.

Perhaps his worst mistake in this area was when he went to great trouble to endorse P.M. Morsi who wasalso the leader of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood and has since been deposed by the Egyptian Army. Who does he endorse once the new P.M. is selected? In the meantime the U.S. has become the laughing stock of the diplomatic world!

SUGGESTION TO THE PRESIDENT:

Unfortunately, you seem to want to use deception (look at all the “mis-information” that you allowed to come out about Benghasi.) to help you in your duties. Even if you can find a teleprinter that works well, do not make any endorsements that you do not have to! If you must, avoid all comments on foreign affairs. If you have to, mislead the press, make verbal deals in private that you won’t be held accountable for. The British, French, and the Germans seem to have been reasonably successful doing this for years.

Share this:

Like this:

Enough is enough. When this nation has switched fully into partnering with and arming militants consistently killing Christians and innocent children and women who were unarmed, then we need to hang our heads with the utmost humbleness and shame for what we have allowed this nation to come to.

In the past several weeks some Syrian rebels have beheaded several Christian men, killed women and children and chanted a well-known term used with clear glee and jubilation. The “commander,” of one rebel unit sliced into a man’s chest until the heart was exposed; he continued the slicing until the man’s liver was visible. Not content with this mutilation, the commander removed the heart and liver. While the commander placed the heart in his mouth and held it with his teeth and left hand, the liver was held in the right hand.

Syrian rebels are now armed with weapons supplied by the United States and it is likely this nation will become bogged down in the muck and mire of yet another nation, fighting the same sort of people we fought in Iraq, that we are fighting in Afghanistan, and in all probability in places about which we’ve not been informed.

While I generally do not trust or support the United Nations, they have stated:

It is impossible to choose unequivocally good guys among the groups of Syrian rebels and send weapons to them. This warning was voiced by chairman of the UN independent panel investigating possible violations of human rights in Syria Paulo Sergio Pinheiro on Friday.

Besides having a president and an administration, neither of which have never met a lie they would have trouble using, we have Senator John McCain (R-AZ) a hero of action in Vietnam, now believing he is right on immigration and Syria. Sadly and unfortunately he is wrong on both issues. Both issues will eventually cost many innocent American lives, but our ruptured government is clueless or deceptive … maybe both.

WARNING: You may follow the related articles below, but please know some of the images are atrocious and not suitable for youth to view without parental supervision.

Share this:

Like this:

It pains me to see representatives of the US make fools of themselves, but Obama’s administration has packed-in more Silly Sallies than its share. John Kerry as Secretary of State has busted the harness (if there ever was one) broken the reins of diplomacy and demonstrated how weak he truly is. Weak, except for promises to deliver bucks and armaments to potential enemies, i.e. Egypt for one, in the middle-east and surrounding area.

Believe it or not, it looks like some members of Obama’s administration are catching up to his wild and wily ways. Read the excerpt of a CBS report and then follow the link after the excerpt to understand the consternation.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In four months as secretary of state, John Kerry has certainly promised great things. Now he has to deliver.

In the Middle East, he has raised hopes his solo diplomatic effort can produce a historic breakthrough ending six decades of Arab-Israeli conflict.

He has pledged to bring Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government to heel and to work with Russia to end Syria’s civil war.

He has suggested rolling back U.S. missile defense in the Pacific if China can help rid North Korea of nuclear weapons. He has hinted at possible one-on-one talks between the U.S. and the reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong Un if it would help.

Since succeeding Hillary Rodham Clinton as America’s top diplomat, Kerry has issued several as yet undelivered — and perhaps undeliverable — pledges to allies and rivals alike, proving a source of concern for Obama’s policy team. It is trying to rein in Kerry somewhat, according to officials, which is difficult considering Kerry has spent almost half his tenure so far in the air or on the road, from where his most dissonant policy statements have come.

The White House quickly distanced itself from both Kerry’s North Korea remarks and has now, since President Barack Obama’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Northern Ireland this past week, seen up close the strength of Moscow’s resistance to Kerry’s Syria strategy.

All the officials interviewed for this story spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to evaluate Kerry’s performance publicly.

Reporting for work at the State Department in February, the former Democratic senator from Massachusetts quickly outlined his ambitions.

Clinton still harbored thoughts of a second potential presidential run when she arrived at the department. But aides say Kerry, a 69-year-old Vietnam veteran, is giving himself completely to a job that in many ways is the climax of his political career and the realization of a lifelong dream after years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Now he wants to tackle head-on the world’s thorniest foreign policy conundrums.